HomeMy WebLinkAboutB - 01 Planning Board Minutes 11/29/2022Page 1 of 5
TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting - Tuesday, 29 November 2022 – 6:30 PM
Town Hall Meeting Room – 3577 Terrace Road – Cortland, NY
Board Members (*absent) Others Present
Christopher Newell, Chairman Bruce Weber, Town Planning/Zoning Officer
Nicholas Renzi (Zoom) Kristin Rocco-Petrella, Town Clerk
Laird Updyke John A. DelVecchio, Town Attorney
Nasrin Parvizi *Joan E. Fitch, Board Secretary
Ann Hotchkin
Applicants & Public Present:
Yvonne Ligoci; Richard I Brownell; Michael T. Carroll; Tim Alger for CP Read Realty, LLC; Jamie Easton
for Regan Development; Rebecca Minas for Barton & Loguidice.
REGULAR MEETING
The Regular Meeting of the Town of Cortlandville Planning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
by Chairman Christopher Newell.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 25, 2022
A motion was made by Member Renzi to approve the Town Planning Board Minutes of 25 October
2022, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Member Parvizi, with the vote recorded as
follows:
Ayes: Chairman Newell Nays: None
Member Renzi
Member Parvizi
Member Updyke
Member Hotchkin
Motion carried.
This becomes Action #53 of 2022.
NEW BUSINESS
Yvonne Ligoci – 762 Blue Creek Rd/4232 Sweeney Rd – TM #85.00-10-04.000 & 85.00-10-03.000
– Subdivision of Land (Lot Line Adjustment)
Chairman Newell recognized Yvonne Ligoci, applicant, and owner, who explained she was seeking a lot
line adjustment in order to sell her property located at 4232 Sweeney Road. She explained that she
initially bought fifteen acres of land and subdivided it into three lots. She built her house (located at 762
Blue Creek Road) and a house for her parents (4232 Sweeney Road). [The third lot remains vacant.] She
was now interested in selling the house located at 4232 Swe eney Road. When the property was surveyed
it was realized that the well was located almost on the property line of 4232 Sweeney Road . In order to
sell the property a lot line adjustment was required. The proposed survey of the properties was
previously provided to the Planning Board. Member Hotchkin asked PZO Weber what the minimum lot
size requirement was. PZO Weber explained that the required lot size was 2.4 acres per the County
Health Department. Per the proposed survey map, the lot sizes were 4.106+/- acres and 5.063+/- acres.
With no further discussion, Member Renzi made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment as
depicted on the proposed survey map dated 11/07/2022 . The motion was seconded by Member
Hotchkin, with the vote recorded as follows:
(T) Cortlandville Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes 29 November 2022
Page 2 of 5
Ayes: Chairman Newell Nays: None
Member Renzi
Member Parvizi
Member Updyke
Member Hotchkin
Motion carried.
This becomes Action #54 of 2022.
Richard L. Brownell, Jr., Applicant/Michael T. Carroll, Reputed Owner – 311 E. Holl Road – TM
#95.00-01-32.200 – Subdivision of Land (Lot Line Adjustment)
Chairman Newell recognized Richard Brownell, applicant, who explained he was seeking a lot line
adjustment to square off his “odd-shaped lot.” He explained that he would be extending the north
border line and the east border line. He would use the property to reclaim his vegetable garden and for
storage. Member Hotchkin asked if the lot line adjustment would affect Mr. Car roll’s remaining lots.
Member Parvizi asked a question about the maps that were provided to the Planning Board. Mr.
Brownell explained that when he went to the County’s website there was a discrepancy with the size of
the lot, so he corrected the map to reflect the actual lot lines.
With no further discussion, Member Parvizi made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment as
requested. The motion was seconded by Member Renzi, with the vote recorded as follows:
Ayes: Chairman Newell Nays: None
Member Renzi
Member Parvizi
Member Updyke
Member Hotchkin
Motion carried.
This becomes Action #55 of 2022.
OLD BUSINESS
Larry Regan of Regan Development, Applicant/Joseph & Dante Armideo, Reputed Owners – 978
NYS Route 13 – TM #96.13-01-02.113 – for a Four-Story Mixed Use Building with 68 Apartments
Units and 6,278 sq. ft. of Commercial Space
Chairman Newell recognized Jamie Easton with EP Land Services, representing the applicant, who
explained that the Planning Board was in receipt of most of the documents such as the full set of site
plans, traffic report, environmental report, SEQR, school impacts, proposed water, and sewer impacts.
The Planning Board did not yet receive the stormwater report or the water and sewer report as they were
tentative.
Mr. Easton explained he was in receipt of the letter from Barton & Loguidice (B&L) and still must
address 95% of the comments. He referenced items #1 and #3 of the County comments on the B&L
letter and discussed the need for a permit from the DOT. Mr. Easton asked that the Board consider and
discuss Item 3, which had to do with the 1 -acre triangular parcel of land close to Route 13. The
County’s recommendation was that the Board may want to do something with this area to “enhance the
area,” and asked the Board what they envision for the 1-acre parcel of land such as adding park
benches. He explained that if the applicant was to own and maintain the area that they only envision
something small like a gazebo and that there are legal hurdles to consider with having this element open
to the public. He asked if the Town wanted ownership of the small 1-acre parcel and if so, they could
subdivide it.
(T) Cortlandville Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes 29 November 2022
Page 3 of 5
Member Hotchkin asked Mr. Easton if there would be a footbridge over the creek. Mr. Easton explained
the site and indicated there is detail on the drawing set of what the footbridge will look like (24 ft long by
5 ft. wide bridge with trek decking). The foot bridge was “not an elaborate structure but something that
was needed to cross the stream.” Chairman Newell asked who would maintain the footbridge with
regard to snow removal, to which Mr. Easton replied that the applicant would maintain the site unless
they subdivided the 1-acre parcel out for the Town - then the Town would maintain the site.
Member Hotchkin asked if the entire parcel would be fenced and if there w ould be cameras on site. Mr.
Easton explained that 50 ft. behind the proposed building is a retaining wall which will act as a fence
due to the slope of the terrain. In response to the question regarding cameras, he explained that the
owner typically has a security system in place; if the Town wants to ask for it, they can. He added that
there is also an onsite supervisor in the building. Member Hotchkin asked the Board if they should ask
for cameras on site.
Chairman Newell mentioned the need for a Use Variance and asked Attorney DelVecchio about the
SEQR process. Attorney DelVecchio explained that the application would go before the ZBA and that
SEQR must be done first. Chairman Newell suggested that after conducting SEQR the Board could “fine
tune” some of the questions brought up by Member Hotchkin.
Member Parvizi reverted to discussion regarding the 1-acre parcel, noting her concerns for lighting and
landscaping along the walkway and especially along the footbridge. Mr. Easton explained that the height
of the bridge and spicket spacing is appropriate and falls under NYS Building Code. He also mentioned
that the footbridge would be over what is not “your typical stream or watercourse” but that it looks more
like an old retention basin.
There was discussion regarding some of the items brought up by B&L such as the 100-year flood plain
and a riparian buffer. He agreed that he needs to determine what the floodplain is and will show it on
the plan (estimated). He stated, if you look at the FEMA maps the site is out of the floodplain. With
regard to the riparian buffer, Mr. Easton asked the Board to think about what they would like as there
is nothing written in the Town Code. Some communities have a certain number of feet that must remain
natural by the stream. Member Hotchkin suggested Mr. Easton use the recommendation from B&L. Mr.
Easton stated that in his opinion he is enhancing the buffer. B&L followed recommendations from the
DEC for the riparian buffer. Mr. Easton also mentioned storm water runoff.
Member Parvizi asked about snow removal and if the 1-acre area would be used to pile snow in the
winter as it was next to the parking. Mr. Easton stated no due to the placement of the fence. He
explained that all snow will be pushed to the south and that there was an enhanced stormwater
measure. With regard to the stormwater system, they were waiting for the analysis on the project site
and that the infiltration rate would be known shortly. Mr. Easton added that if the stormwater system
needs to be redesigned then they would redesign it.
There was discussion between Mr. Easton and Ms. Minas from B&L regarding future plans for the
parcel and whether there is a Phase 1 and then Phase 2. Mr. Easton explained that there are no future
phases for the project and that he would do a better job outlining th at. Mr. Easton also discussed the
minor wetlands and watercourse impacts, noting that a permit must be obtained from the DEC and
Army Corps of Engineers and that the joint application process has been started.
Member Hotchkin asked if consideration has been made for public transportation and asked the County
Transit to make a stop at the location. Mr. Easton stated that typically, the public transit does not go off
the route and did not expect them to turn into the site. He noted that a bus would be able to “make the
turns” on the site.
PZO Weber noted that the ZBA would be holding a meeting on December 20th and that Regan’s
application will be on the agenda. Mr. Easton explained the timeline for the project noting that the next
round of applications to HCR will be submitted in June 2023 wi th funding awards in September 2023. If
approved, the construction would not start until March 2024.
(T) Cortlandville Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes 29 November 2022
Page 4 of 5
Chairman Newell asked Mr. Easton for examples of completed projects by Regan Development. Mr.
Easton explained that Regan Development has a site in Binghamton/Johnson City, which involved the
rehabilitation of an existing building. Regan Development also constructed a 72-unit, four-story building
in Glens Falls, New York. He mentioned that the Town could call the local representatives to inquire
about the project.
Chairman Newell asked if Ms. Minas had any comments to make on behalf of B&L. Ms. Minas stated
that it would take some time for Mr. Easton and his team to digest a lot of the comments from B&L. Her
only question was in relation to Part 1 of SEQR and wheth er the Planning Board intended to declare
itself lead agency. Attorney DelVecchio did not believe the Town ZBA consented to the Planning Board
being lead agency yet but expected them to do so at their next meeting. Ms. Easton expected the Board
to have a revised EAF before the end of the year for review. The notifications could go out and the 30-
day period could start. It was mentioned that funding sources, such as HCR, would also like to be
added as an involved agency.
Chairman Newell and the Planning Board thanked Mr. Easton and Ms. Minas for their time.
NO ACTION
CP Realty, LLC, Applicant/Reputed Owner – 3975 NYS Route 281 – TN #86.13-01-32.000 – Site
Plan Approval & APDS Permit for Proposed New Retail Store (Meldrim’s Paint Store)
Chairman Newell recognized Tim Alger, representing the applicant who was seeking approval to
construct a new 6,000 SF retail store and associated par king on an existing partially developed 1.75+/-
acre commercial property, zoned B-2 Highway Commercial. Approximately 32,000 SF of open space and
new stormwater management practices will remain.
Mr. Alger explained that the County Planning Board made 9 or 10 recommendations and that most of
the recommendations are underway. Engineer, Tim Buhl spoke with PZO Weber and was going to
provide him with the actual landscape plan and the lighting. Member Hotchkin asked if a letter was sent
to SHPO. Mr. Alger was not aware. Mr. Alger mentioned that the run-off retention pond that is in the
flood zone was being worked on. It is in the recommendations to move it or to comply with the agency.
Chairman Newell asked PZO Weber if they will need written verification. PZO Weber stated there are a
number of things that have not been addressed . He suggested the Planning Board wait until they receive
updated plans before taking any action.
Member Hotchkin mentioned SHPO again. Since the project site is on a river bank an archaeological
study may be needed, which could affect the project’s budget and cause a delay. She mentioned that it
was on the applicant’s SEQR form and recommended Mr. Alger write a letter to SHPO to move the
process along. Chairman Newell stated that some of the issues could be taken care of, and the applicant
can come back to the Board in December.
Member Hotchkin asked if the project needed an Area Variance, to which PZO Weber stated it did not.
Chairman Newell stated there were issues with paint storage but was sure the applicant could mitigate
that. PZO Weber explained there is a difference between bulk storage. Are there fifty-five gallons and are
they distributing it? But, having 1,000 1- gallon containers are not considered bulk storage. If there is a
reference to bulk storage, it is not applicable.
There were no further questions from the Board. The application would be moved to the Planning
Board’s December 27th meeting agenda. Bruce asked Mr. Alger to provide him with any new documents
two weeks prior to the next meeting.
NO ACTION
(T) Cortlandville Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes 29 November 2022
Page 5 of 5
Forest Learning Collective, Applicant/Chris Henry Holdings, Reputed Owners – Lime Hollow Road
– TM #95.00-06-10.000 – Conditional Permit for Proposed Informal Outdoor Nature Center
Chairman Newell stated he wanted to talk briefly about Forest Learning Collective. The applicant (Julie
Kiffin) was not present, however as far as he knew they were still operating. He asked if the Planning
Board needed written proof from the Health Department that everything was in order . PZO Weber
mentioned that he had communicated with Ms. Kiffen by email, and she indicated that she had been in
touch with the Health Department and that the Health Department did not need anything, which he
thought was surprising. She also indicated that she was working with CEO McMahon regarding
potential building permits. PZO Weber asked her to supply him with the information she had for the
Planning Board, but he did not receive anything. He informed her of the meeting tonight as well.
Chairman Newell stated that at this point, if they are still operating, they are operating the way that
they want to operate which may or may not be correct. PZO Weber indicated that they could be charged
with a violation for operating without appropriate approval. He suggested that if the Planning Board
wanted to pursue the violation that they ask Attorney DelVecchio to take appropriate action.
Discussion occurred about the number of domes that were already on site as well as the Porta-Potty and
handwashing station. There were questions about what was already on site. Chairman Newell stated he
would like a letter from the Health Department regarding such.
Chairman Newell stated that there was apparently no need for a daycare certification. PZO Weber
clarified there was no need for such based on the age of the children. Member Hotchkin added that it
was a school rather than a daycare.
Member Hotchkin asked what prompted the applicant to seek a permit from the Planning Board. PZO
Weber explained that a neighbor contacted the Town and inquired as to what w as going on at the
property. PZO Weber would email the applicant and request they attend the next meeting. Chairman
Newell requested the applicant bring documentation at that time.
NO ACTION
Other Discussion
Regarding the Regan Development application, Member Parvizi asked if the Board should discuss the
questions Mr. Eaton asked them about the 1-acre parcel of land and the security cameras. Chairman
Newell stated he would like to visit the site to look at the 1-acre portion of the property that was being
discussed. PZO Weber suggested the Planning Board have a discussion with the Town Board as well
regarding the question of the 1-acre parcel being turned over to the Town because if so, the Town would
be responsible for maintenance etc. The Town may not be interested in the parcel at all. Member Parvizi
stated that she liked the idea of visiting the site. Chairman Newell suggested that if the 1-acre property
is “scrub land” perhaps it can be cleaned up with landscape.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:30 p.m., a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Newell, seconded by Member
Hotchkin, with all members present voting in the affirmative.
Kristin E. Rocco-Petrella, Town Clerk
acting for Joan E. Fitch, Board Secretary
E-mailed to Town Clerk, AR, Bd. Members, JD
County Planning, BW and KM & DC on 7/24/23.